Thursday, February 21, 2008

THREE MORE QUICK QUESTIONS

First a short preface:

My second oldest brother, who we called “Buddy,” and who passed away over a decade ago, was a teenager in the Navy stationed on Okinawa toward the end of WWII, while there was still a battle raging for control of it, between our forces and the Japanese. That was over sixty years ago.
Today, we still have a huge U. S. military presence on that Japanese island, and the locals haven’t wanted us there for a long time. They say our mission is accomplished and we should leave. Especially when one of our troops rapes a local school girl, or robs a local house, or runs over a local citizen while driving under the influence.
But even without those provocations, they think it’s time we left, even though it’s a source of a lot of local income. They’d rather have their land, and autonomy over it, back than have our troops firmly planted in their midst.

1. So my first question is, why do we have so many military installations around the world, especially in places where they are not wanted, while supposedly fighting “a war on terror” in which we have abdicated the initiative to the terrorists in the main battlegrounds of Afghanistan and Pakistan (where the main terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, has been hiding out since 9/11) because of our stretched-thin military and lack of enough troops (as we also did in Iraq until the “surge,” even if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no terrorists until we invaded and made it hospitable to them)?

2. Do Hilary and her campaign managers really think pushing to legitimize her unsanctioned “primary” wins in Michigan and Florida to obtain those delegates—though Obama wasn’t even on the ballots there because the Democratic Party officials proclaimed them off bounds and illegitimate for moving their primaries up, against Party rulings—will win her support among Democrats?

3. Will the Dems be strong enough to run ads featuring McCain’s many flip flops and totally un-presidential presentations (singing “Bomb-bomb-Iran” to the tune of Bar-bar-bra-ann)—and pointing out when their attacks are dishonest or misleading, or be scared off by the media taking the rightwing bait (ala Rush) and making the latest story of McCain’s hypocrisy be about the New York Times rather than his behavior?

15 comments:

JIm said...

The New York Times has lost its standing as the US paper of record. Increasingly, it has become the Moveon.org paper of record. It has proven this with consistent anti Republican party and blame America first stories on its front page. Jason Blaire, fraudulent writer, Howard Raines, resigned disgraced editor, the leaking of secret information to the detriment of the war against Islamo terrorists etc, has become standard fair. The surprising thing about the John McCain story is how unsurprising the NYTimes has become. Assuming the Times gave their best shot on breaking the story, there was no there there. The National Inquirer better sources their stories. I believe it was important to have a US paper of record that kept its opinion on the editorial page, but that time is past. The NYT loss of circulation and of stock value is well justified.

PS Even though I was a reluctant supporter of McCain, I have now become an enthusiastic advocate. I guess the Times is still capable of good.

harryn said...

thank you again jim for yet another predictable diatribe, and consistently reminding me of the distortions and 'manipuspeak' to which this election of 'change' offers relief ...
i believe you're correct about the ny times losing status as a paper of record, but that seems to be more symptomatic of the course that most media has taken over the past few decades - you know, 'no reader/viewer/listener left behind' - a lot of old news and views with an abundance of hip adverts ...
as far as blaire and raines are concerned, it sounds(from your description) like their credentials might qualify them for positions as rush limbaugh staffers - one who has elevated snipes, disinformation, sound bytes, and convoluted logic to an art form from the bunkers of the eib network ...
i am morbidly curious however - does the 'reluctant supporter' position offer absolution from mccain's inevitable disagreement with bush policy ...

on to more important things - like michael's questions which many are concerned about ...

1. i had a friend back in the 90's (since passed away) that was a very wealthy ny industrialist, west pointer, friend of newt, republican ... we had dinner at his estate every sunday night for years and i remember him telling me how good war was for the economy - and during the closing of military bases during clinton, him telling me that 'our' presence is good advertising, intel, and a vigilant reminder of who is in control ...
i guess if you think of america as the wayward son of the brit empire, military(bully) colonization is no surprise ...
still i wonder what the 'big picture' is and what eventualities we are actually preparing for - bi laden seems to be a suitable distraction ... i'm more concerned with hemispheric re alignments and alliances ...
2. hilary is not looking presidential - she's got credentials but the wide eyed panic look ain't going to make it ...
at this point she's grasping, and my hope is that they (her & bill) don't to too much damage to the party - i still believe her power base would be a good second in command ...
3. if the majority of americans simply vote their conscience over the record of the past eight years and obama maintains his intelligent dignity - and mccain caves in to the conservative demands the republicans will do a rudy ...
a lot could happen in 9 months, especially if fear infects the equations ... america has become far too reactionary ...

an aside - over articulated and exuberant positions on policy change(particularly anything that deviates too drastically from the familiar) could be to the demise of the democrats - without a doubt people want change, but there are believable arguments about anything different - truth is, you have to sit in the oval office to evaluate the truly inherent mess to propose reasonable legislation to put our country back on target for the 21st century - this is what the people want - not pipe dream solutions and not more of the same with mccain ...

JIm said...

Harryn,
If by “predictable diatribe” you mean that I prefer to find opinion and attempted character assasination on the editorial page of NYT, rather than the front page,I take that as a compliment and I thank you. Unfortunately I am at a loss for the meaning of “manipuspeak' . I would appreciate enlightenment. The change election of a coming together accross party lines, if Obama is elected, is unlikely given his votes on higher taxes, weaker national security, more government control over our daily lives, less individual responsibility, legislating from the bench, infanticide of full term aborted babies born alive etc. etc. Blaire and Raines were liberal, loose with facts and would probably not fit in with Rush. Reluctant supporter, refers to McCain’s positions and votes on some tax bills, McCain Feingold, amnesty immigration, gang of fourteen on judges. McCain says he has found religion on taxes and he was obviously right on the surge and will make our enemies fear and respect us.
Thank you for your comments.

Phillipa said...

Great questions, M.

My two cents:

1) The following excerpt from Chalmers Johnson's new book, NEMISIS: THE LAST DAYS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, seems to sum up the underlying political/economic goals in building up our military bases globally:

“Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America's version of the colony is the military base; and by following the changing politics of global basing, one can learn much about our ever more all-encompassing imperial "footprint" and the militarism that grows with it.

It is not easy, however, to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records available to the public on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual inventories from 2002 to 2005 of real property it owns around the world, the Base Structure Report, there has been an immense churning in the numbers of installations.

The total of America's military bases in other people's countries in 2005, according to official sources, was 737. Reflecting massive deployments to Iraq and the pursuit of President Bush's strategy of preemptive war, the trend line for numbers of overseas bases continues to go up.

Interestingly enough, the thirty-eight large and medium-sized American facilities spread around the globe in 2005 -- mostly air and naval bases for our bombers and fleets -- almost exactly equals Britain's thirty-six naval bases and army garrisons at its imperial zenith in 1898. The Roman Empire at its height in 117 AD required thirty-seven major bases to police its realm from Britannia to Egypt, from Hispania to Armenia. Perhaps the optimum number of major citadels and fortresses for an imperialist aspiring to dominate the world is somewhere between thirty-five and forty.”

Great book, BTW.

2) Clinton’s attempts to legitimize her unsanctioned “primary” wins in Michigan and Florida to obtain those delegates is transparently desperate and self-serving. If her feeble attempt to win these delegates grows any legs it will likely alienate potential Clinton voters (both Independents and Democrats). Sadly, Hillary’s campaigning tactics diminish her appeal and credibility as an agent of change. She looks more and more like a cog in the same ‘ole machine that so many Americans are sick and tired of. Obama is savvy; he’s doesn’t bite Hillary’s bait and comes out looking like the better man (person).

3) One can only hope the Democrats have learned something about winning a Presidential election after the last two debacles. Dean has been keeping a low profile, which I find curious. But yes, I think this time around the Dems will take off the gloves in the general election.

The Kid said...

I accept that the present day messengers have all been compromised or corrupted by corporate interests, the NY Times is no exception.

As we head slowly toward November, it serves us all to be reminded of the crimes of the current administration, and to remain focused on getting them OUT of office—see this great video by Scott Ritter, a former US Marine Corps officer, UN weapons inspector and expert on the armaments of Iraq.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/114.html

JIm said...

Global Warmin Question

Will Global Warming wackos from both political parties that espouse, preach, insist that all discussion is over, continue their new religion in the face of the coldest winter since 1966. One can only hope, if only for the entertainment value.

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, February 25, 2008

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

lgunter@shaw.ca

Anonymous said...

Question #1 - Asking this question about Guam or Germany is selective ignorance in my view. We have and have had bases in Germany and Japan by treaty since the end of World War 2 in order to guarantee that neither militarizes again.

Bases in other locations throughout the world are through treaty as well. In order to answer a question about Guantanamo before it is asked, the agreement between Kennedy and Krushev in 1961 guaranteed the US having and maintaining that existing base.

Question #2 - There is nothing the Clinton machine will not stoop to in their drive for power and the presidency. Their aims are selfish with no regard to party or anything else. Tyoical of the Democratic Party though.

Question #3 - The debates in the run up to the general election should be interesting. Two senators, vehicles in the body of Change in our government, are claiming that the very body that they are members of is broken. They better stick to issues rather than attacks as in the childish campaign of John Kerry. Attacks have the horrible habit of back firing.

I copntinually have to laugh at the idea that Rush is the puppeteer of the GOP. How people cannot see that he exaggerates Conservative ideas to the point of lunacy is beyond me. The GOP is a party of many factions that have as their central core the Declaration of Independence and the desire to bring about a Constitution that reflects that document.

How can the Democratic platform of larger government and government control of our lives not be socialism?

Lally said...

Okay, you rightwingers are just plain silly. So when the Republicans controlled for several years under Bush Junior, all three branches of government, and still used "Washington" in their diatribes as if they weren't the washington establishment and in total control, and under that control they went against every principle they pretend to stand for (i.e. "smaller government" only grew larger under them than under any Democrat, as it did under Reagan, only Bill Clinton managed to actually reduce the federal payroll) (and government control in our personal lives is a Democratic position, you gotta be drunk, there has never been an time of more government abuse of our rights to privacy etc. than under this latestv republicn regime, etc.) And I wish we had a socialist government, that garunteed everyone housing and healthcare and a good education and a job and etc. Not "communist" but "socialist" though anonymous and their ilk can't seem to distinquish between any degrees of center and left-of-center, while insisting the Republicans are a party of variety (tell that to African-Amwericans and other minorities so unbelieavably underrepresented in your party) and if you believe in the Constitution and Declaration of Independences, does that mean we can go back to owning slaves and not counting them as full humans and take back the vote from women and white men who don't own property etc. etc. or if you believe the chganges made in the constitution since it's creation are valid than you aren't a "strict constructionist" and seem to be more of a Democrat, and by the way if you do beleive in those original documents than you must be for elimintating all secret agencies in our government and getting rid of the legal statues of corporations as "individuals" etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Lally said...

PS: got a little carried away in my above response and made many typos, most of which are still clear except maybe that last one where I meant the status of corporations, legally, as individuals rather than economic entities, etc. I also meant to add a comment on Jim's global warming entry, that perhaps the people you refer to have a legitimate point, but if 99.8 per cent of world scientists trained in the deciphering of scientific data concerning global warming agree, and .2 percent agree with your boys, I'll go with the 99.8% for now. As our parents used to say, better safe than sorry. And the idea that freakishly heavy snowfall is inconsistent with "global warming" means you haven't read any of the scientific data about global warming, since one of the things it states is that weather patterns will change drastically creating drought where there was heavy rainfall, snow where there was none, etc. etc. The term a lot of people use, so as not to confuse those with an inability to grasp the meaning of the data because it seems contradictory, is "global wierding"—and if you don't think the scientific data that makes it clear the average temperature of the world has been rising over the past several decades and continues to accelerate at an ever growing pace, then take a trip to some of the world's most famous glaciers, or Iceland, or Alaska for that matter. Oh wait, that would mean believing reality even when it doesn't fit into your ideology. Something rightwingers seem incapable of. Now there's a difference between the right and the left. When Lyndon Johnson went against the principles of his party with the war in Vietnam, he didn't have a chance of being re-nominated, let alone re-elected. When Bush junior went against the principles of his party, growing the government, creating more government control in the private lives of citizens, etc. etc. he got re-nominated and re-elected with the support of a rightwing base he continually used and abused for his own ends, and they didn't start complaining until long after.

Anonymous said...

The entire global warming theory relies on computer modeling and ignores the cyclical nature of climate.

In the study of ice cores from Greenland, it is apparent that about 1000 years ago the Vikings had farming colonies on the island. Today that same climate will not support farming.

The 'hockey stick' graph of the waming folks represents the cyclical nature of climate and them thrusts into projections based on their computer programs rather than rational science.

On another point, the Declaration does not endorse slavery. Neither does it endorse Indian eviction nor segregation.

I have to chuckle at the crazy rants that our privacy is curtailed by the NSA listening station. This has been going on since technology has allowed it. J, Edgar Hoover may not have curtailed rights, but he sure maintained certain limits on them.

Johnson escalated Viet Nam with the blessings of the Democratic Party and the military contractors. (Most notably Halliburton and Brown & Root)

Your version of history is revisionist.

JIm said...

Anonomous,
You fellow right winger, yea and vearily!! The diatribes are flying left and right and main campaign has yet to begin. It is going to be great fun.

Mike,
You need to do a little more research on global warming. A very large number of scientists who were listed as agreeing with the UN global warming conclusions actually renounced their inclusions as supporters. There follows a very partial list of renowned scientists and the specific issue/issure with which they take issue. I apologise for the length but the number of disagreeing scientist is quite lengthy.

[edit] Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased

Surface temperatures measured by thermometers and lower atmospheric temperature trends inferred from satellitesTimothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[5] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[7] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[8]
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."[9]
Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."[10]

[edit] Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate
Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist: a doubling of atmospheric CO2 "will amount to less than 1°C of global warming [and] such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of fossil fuels—certainly not before the end of this century."[11]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[12]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[13]

[edit] Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[14][15][16]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[17]
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."[18]
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[19]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[20]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[21]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[22]
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[23] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[24] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[25]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[26]
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[27]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[28]
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."[29]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[30]
Tim Patterson[31], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[32][33]
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[34]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction".[35][36]
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities."[37]
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[38]
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[39][40] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[41]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[42]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[43]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[44]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[45]

[edit] Believe cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[46]
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."[47]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[48]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[49]
Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[50]
William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system."[51]
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[52]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."[53]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[54] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[55]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind."[56]

[edit] Believe global warming will benefit human society
Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures and/or increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will be of little impact or a net positive for human society.

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; founder of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers...this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."[57]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."[58]
Patrick Michaels, former state climatologist, University of Virginia: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree...a modest warming is a likely benefit."[59]

Lally said...

As always, you guys are very selective in what you choose to respond to, let alone how. Jim, let's not quote entire articles and bibliographies and books and entire libraries, on a comments spot okay? I can quote a hundred times as many scientists as you have, so what does that prove? Only that you're not gonna change your mind and neither am I until I see evidence to the contrary. And anonymous says Republicans are the ones who believe in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, in the most self-satisfied, self-centered way, as if dsemocrats believe in some other set of documents, and then when I mention slavery he only mentions the Declaration and not the Constitution, and so on. I'm quitting responding to you guys for awhi8le, because it's just wasting time, since you can't seem to fathom anything that disagrees with your ideology. And the arguments are always couched to let Republicans off the hook and blame Democrats. By the way Jim, the pond in our hometown we used to skate on every winter hasn't frozen over in years. I guess that's part of your new ice age.

JIm said...

Mike,
It is just as well. I am not up to tackle ring a lario any more and you were not very good anyway.

Anonymous said...

And here I am thinking that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two separate documents.

How silly of me.

JIm said...

Global Warming Update- 19000 scientists sign petition

If true, I suspect this would raise the percentage of dissenting scientists to considerably more than .5%.

"The alarmists are likely to become really alarmed when they read about the International Conference On Climate Change that will begin deliberations in New York City tomorrow. More than 400 scientists, economists and experts are scheduled to attend the three-day event organized by the Heartland Institute for the purpose of challenging the claim that global warming is a “crisis.” According to the sponsors, some 19,000 American scientists have signed a petition saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis—so much for the often touted consensus that the global warming lobby keeps yapping about."

Source -http://www.townhall.com/columnists/NickNichols/2008/03/01/a_total_crock_of_doo-doo!